"Fed Up With the CAWs..."

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

Hi Mark,
I enjoy the insight and the stories.

lol @ the 2 minute man nickname

Believe it or not, no double entendre intended. Of all bettors I have known (period), I respect him most.

I once opened a show by gravely intoning that "the two-minute man cometh." (Again, lol, no off-color inference!) I did get the impression he did not appreciate being profiled or referenced, even with anonymity intact. So I knocked it off.

FWIW, i don't think he bets us much these days. At least I don't see his distinctive fingerprints on mnr win-pools.

[castaway01]

In the 3rd at Saratoga yesterday, the exacta of eventual 17-1 winner Arzak and 15-1 second-place horse Coppola went from $131.75 at 2:21.26 to $75.25 11 seconds later (the race went off at 2:22).

Pretty hard to compete with that level of skill and foresight.

[1st time lasix]

Foresight or hindsight.

[o_crunk]

Originally Posted by castaway01

In the 3rd at Saratoga yesterday, the exacta of eventual 17-1 winner Arzak and 15-1 second-place horse Coppola went from $131.75 at 2:21.26 to $75.25 11 seconds later (the race went off at 2:22).

Pretty hard to compete with that level of skill and foresight.

Race 9 yesterday on the same card. 17-1 Cherokee Cottage over 6-1 Iguaszu had the exacta pay $194.50 for $1. There were dozens of twitter threads yesterday on the race 3 exacta payoff but I didn't see any on this race from the same card.

If you're going to say the value is the win pool, it would seem that you got hosed on the win in this particular race if we are to believe the exacta pool is really where the sharp CRW money is. Seems like confusing message from the NYRA folks tasked with explaining this. It also seems like confusing messaging from the folks who are going around making CRW out to be the boogeyman.

I said this 6 months ago on this forum.

Originally Posted by o_crunk

So the questions are....

Is it better to cut CRW off at 2 minutes and have these situations where there is *more* inefficiency between the WIN (displayed odds) and the place/show/exotics? (I kinda like having more inefficiency as a stand alone player)

Or is it better to not cut CRW off at 2 minutes and have Raise Cain get bet down commensurate with the place / show / exotics?

I mean, the common complaint was that it just "looks bad" to see these odds drops. OK, so we've removed the odds drops. And now, it's something else that's wrong? I get it but the genie is not being put back in the bottle. Everybody wants to go back to 1980 when only a select few had speed figures and everybody bet at 10 minutes to post and there was 1 daily double a day and maybe an exacta and a tri on the last race. Is this what people want? Only dumb money? It's not gonna happen.

For me, you aren't putting the genie back in the bottle. Let the CRWs run wild. But the rebate remains the issue. If "racing" believed that reduced takeout would be good for business, the CRW rebate would be toast with reduced takeout. But they don't believe that. They believe the takeout doesn't matter except for the very high volume players.

So this is where we are. It seems it would be more complicated for a recreational bettor to play racing now with all these somewhat known or unknown rules about what type of players are involved in which pool and what that means for the other pools. Seems silly to me. Maybe just cut the rebate, reduce the take and give it an honest shot for a couple years to see where the industry is at. Instead we get these cockamamie schemes that aim to appease but wind up making things *way* more complicated than necessary.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by cj

Pool size?

That makes perfect sense early on, but I seem to recall reading Benter saying the pools in Hong Kong eventually became more efficient because of all the copycat players. Yet the game is still flourishing,

I'm not sure what to think anymore.

It's obvious the pools are way more efficient now than they were years ago when I started playing.

I've also been the victim of exacta prices that were way out of line with the win pool because they got crushed late.

Seriously, 40 years ago I tried tracking exacta payoffs vs. win prices hoping to squeeze out a few extra dollars by using the better pool. It was obvious a LOT of people were doing the same thing because the pools used to slowly drift towards being in sync in the last 5 minutes. They were so in sync, I stopped wasting the energy trying. The difference between then and now is that what players did slowly over the last 5 minutes back then is done in the last few seconds by computers now. But it does seem those pools (at least in NY) are less in sync now, probably because the computers aren't moving the win pool as much as they were and the public has no idea what's coming in the exactas late.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by castaway01

In the 3rd at Saratoga yesterday, the exacta of eventual 17-1 winner Arzak and 15-1 second-place horse Coppola went from $131.75 at 2:21.26 to $75.25 11 seconds later (the race went off at 2:22).

Pretty hard to compete with that level of skill and foresight.

There needs to be an investigation into this. The projected exacta payout, parlaying win payout to place payout is about $480 for 2. The exacta went from paying $263.50 (was already over bet) to $150.50 and ended up paying $156. It went from paying slightly over 1/2 of fair value to slightly over 32% of fair value at off. Even the double from race 2 that was won by a 1.1 shot in race 2 should have been 77.70 on a parlay and it came back $64.50. That is a little short but not even 20% short (exacta was 68% short). Convenient to say Caw isn't in the win pool, this is what happens. I am not buying. This is very suspicious. This race reeks. Stuff like this will bury the sport really quickly. That was a $350,000 exacta pool with the exacta from the 9th favorite to the 8th favorite in a 9 horse field coming up 68% short.

For comparisons sakes look at the exacta in race 10. 17.5 to 1 on top but only a
6.1 to 1 for second. Win/place parlay in there was $307, $2 exacta paid $389.

Also note the 50 cent trifecta was $708 in the 10th race and $315.25 in the 3rd race even though the win odds on the top horse was the same and win odds on both the 2nd and 3rd place finisher was lower in the 10th race. Also note the first 4 favorites were not in the trifecta in the 3rd and it still payed ridiculously low.

Did not mean to duplicate Ocrunk, but I was typing out my post when he posted.

[Brass Hat]

Pat Cummings and David Aragona were on Twitter posting about this last night if you can find it. Cummings showed the pool in his post. I am not on Twitter, saw this by googling it. A large bet on that combination went in seconds before the gate opened.

Irritates me too, as I always play exactas. Many times find the payout smaller than the will play, especially with a favorite. Did not play this card yesterday but watched it on TV, don't have the PP's. Doesn't seem like an illogical bet, a Trombetta, good turf sprint trainer, over the speed, but I watched it, thought it would be a good payout 17-1 over 15-1. Would have been angry if I had played it.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

With all the current uproar about CAWs (the latest being an underpriced exacta in NY on Wednesday that put Twitter on tilt),

about at the penultimate odds cycle in the exacta pool

they figured out that the was almost as good as the chalk .

They figured out that the was a better contender than the and

So they basically had and slightly as contenders.

was known chalk , and was a known low priced entry. These were on everyone's exacta consideration.

The crazy part was them somehow identifying the as being as good as the .

They also figured out that the was not a contender. So they somehow had the as 4th choice.

Twitter

Twitter

__________________
Preparation. Discipline. Patience. Decisiveness.

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

That makes perfect sense early on, but I seem to recall reading Benter saying the pools in Hong Kong eventually became more efficient because of all the copycat players. Yet the game is still flourishing,

It's cultural. The culture in Hong Kong doesn't attach a stigma to gambling, and horse racing is one of the most popular ways to gamble, so the pools are massive. Here horse racing is about 17th on the list of popular things to gamble on, and (as this and a billion other threads discuss) the percentage of the pool that is money bet by the sharpest players is rising rapidly as the casual players drop out. These are not debatable points, there are simple facts based on the numbers.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

There needs to be an investigation into this. The projected exacta payout, parlaying win payout to place payout is about $480 for 2. The exacta went from paying $263.50 (was already over bet) to $150.50 and ended up paying $156. It went from paying slightly over 1/2 of fair value to slightly over 32% of fair value at off. Even the double from race 2 that was won by a 1.1 shot in race 2 should have been 77.70 on a parlay and it came back $64.50. That is a little short but not even 20% short (exacta was 68% short). Convenient to say Caw isn't in the win pool, this is what happens. I am not buying. This is very suspicious. This race reeks. Stuff like this will bury the sport really quickly. That was a $350,000 exacta pool with the exacta from the 9th favorite to the 8th favorite in a 9 horse field coming up 68% short.

here's what happened, Poindexter:
Somehow the CAW had inside information (or elite handicapping) that the was as good as the . (as well as couple other things mentioned in a post above.
I don't know how or what to investigate. They bet before the wagering was closed. Their accuracy was somehow a few standard deviations beyond regular average handicappers. Skill or luck or really sharp information.

The 2 was a speed/forward type, and the 3 was an supposedly obvious favorite where Irad was riding outside of his normal loyalties/connections. You also had 3 or 4 guys that Irad and and Irad's allegience/loyalties at times work together in races.
I can't really say that CAW 'bet against' or tossed the chalky 3. All I can say is that in the cycle (basically around the penultimate or near the very end of last wagering) that the 2 would have been translated to 'win odds' as a near favorite. I don't know how much in that betting cycle was CAW vs. other money, and how much CAW actually bet or did-not-bet on the .
All I can really say for sure - is hat off to getting several things right for the CAW, and I can't factually say anything beyond it was elite handicapping or luck.

[castaway01]

The bet was made before post time, so not sure what the "investigation" would find. It's not illegal to bet the right exacta before the race goes off. This is just what we are up against right now.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by castaway01

It's cultural. The culture in Hong Kong doesn't attach a stigma to gambling, and horse racing is one of the most popular ways to gamble, so the pools are massive. Here horse racing is about 17th on the list of popular things to gamble on, and (as this and a billion other threads discuss) the percentage of the pool that is money bet by the sharpest players is rising rapidly as the casual players drop out. These are not debatable points, there are simple facts based on the numbers.

I'm not questioning why Hong Kong "was" doing so well or what's going on here.

I'm questioning why Hong Kong continues to do so well despite an army of math/computer guys betting into their pools also and making their odds more efficient.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by mountainman

Believe it or not, no double entendre intended. Of all bettors I have known (period), I respect him most.

I once opened a show by gravely intoning that "the two-minute man cometh." (Again, lol, no off-color inference!) I did get the impression he did not appreciate being profiled or referenced, even with anonymity intact. So I knocked it off.

FWIW, i don't think he bets us much these days. At least I don't see his distinctive fingerprints on mnr win-pools.

I laugh, but I'm impressed by anyone pushing money through the pools w/ any success. I'm also intrigued by anyone with experience w/ pool-changing bets.

[metro]

It’s not like they just pounded the 4-2 combo, any exacta payoff with the 2 was going to come across short, the graphs posted by Pat Cummings on Twitter confirmed that. What should be done, but won’t because it doesn’t fit the narrative, would be to post the same late exacta pool graphs (like he did for the 3rd) for yesterday’s 10th. Show how the late money hit that pool, but apparently missed. A 17-1 over a 6-1 paying $194 for a buck. It might give context to an argument that rarely is given any.

[Jeff P]

The racing product is still well supported by people living in Hong Kong looking to have some fun and do a little gambling.

Here in the US you have that same crowd. (But except for special event days they've gravitated towards the casino.)

One result of the general public embracing horse racing at Happy Valley and Sha Tin:

Elite money as a percentage of handle in every pool is significantly lower than that of US pools. (Although percentage of elite handle is higher present day vs. when Benter and Woods started betting there.)

Imo, there are reasons the general public still supports racing in Hong Kong but not so much here in the US.

Among those reasons I would list field size, takeout relative to field size, access to data/stats at the Hong Kong Jockey Club site, and transparency,

Field Size
Hong Kong enjoys an average field size of about 12 vs. average field size of 7.59 here in the US for 2022.

The Paulick Report | by Dick Powell |10-14-2021
Hong Kong Racing Study Guide: Leading Trainers By ROI:
https://paulickreport.com/horseplaye...ainers-by-roi/

Part of this is explainable by field size. The average field size of every race in Hong Kong is about 12. So, from a random point of view, each trainer has a 1 in 12 chance of winning or 8.33%. If the field size is 8, like it is at many American tracks, there is a 1 in 8 chance of winning or 12.5%. Winning races in Hong Kong is much more difficult, even for the leading trainers.

Takeout Relative to Field Size
According to the Paulick Report article above: "Takeout on win betting in Hong Kong is 17.5%" --

Given avg field size of 12 win pool takeout in Hong Kong works out to about 1.46% per runner.

Applying the same takeout rate to avg field size of 7.59 win pool takeout here in the US works out to 2.31% per runner.

Put another way: win pool takeout per runner here in the US is about 1.58 TIMES higher than win pool takeout per runner in Hong Kong.



-jp
.